Air Force Space Fence Being Shut Down 86
New submitter meglon writes "NASA will lose access to important real-time information on tracking orbital debris if the order of Gen. William Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command, is carried out. The Space Fence, the only monitoring system of its kind, will cease to function on October 1st. 'Deployed in the 1960s, the VHF Space Fence includes three transmitter sites and six receiving stations. It is responsible for approximately 40 percent of all observations performed by the Air Force-run Space Surveillance Network, which includes other ground-and space-based sensor assets, said Brian Weeden, technical adviser at the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to space sustainability. ... A full-scale development contract for an updated version of the Space Fence had been expected in 2012 or early 2013, but on July 16, Shelton said the multibillion-dollar project is being held up due to a wide-ranging Pentagon review that includes major acquisition programs. The review is examining scenarios under which the Pentagon’s budget is cut by $150 billion, $250 billion and $500 billion during the next decade.'"
Re:I just had a brilliant idea (Score:4, Funny)
Just transfer all the money cut from the DOD to NASA. Then they can run it themselves! Genius, yes?
No.
The space junk which has slowly been taking on sentience, not unlike Hactar, will complain mightily in internet forums, where it'll largely be ignored (see earlier link [slashdot.org].
It'll all end up with songs which could make Paul McCartney so rich he could buy the galaxy and several short, but very violent cricket match invasions.
Re:I just had a brilliant idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Having worked for both DOD and NASA, I can tell you with certainty that NASA is even worse of a cluster fuck moneywise than DOD.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
How have the capabilities of NASA ever been used to justify a war?
And to be fair, NASA is a political football. Its mission changes ever couple of years because it never has enough funding to complete what it is told. This might breed a little bit of budgetary nihilism. Fund a big rocket, but then cut funding, fund a nuclear rocket, cut it, fund a space station, cut it, etc. This rarely happens to the DOD, so they can at least plan.
Give the money to NASA. People who aren't going to become refugees will than
Re: (Score:3)
Who wants a space fence (Score:2)
Somebody needs to buy it and run it. How much would it cost?
Re:Who wants a space fence (Score:4, Insightful)
Turn it into a space fence to keep out illegal aliens.
Re:Who wants a space fence (Score:5, Funny)
Turn it into a space fence to keep out illegal aliens.
Aliens are what keep the economy of Area 51 rock solid and giving it 10% quarter on quarter growth!
at least, that's what they tell me to type
Re: (Score:1)
Area 51 is just a decoy.
All the good stuff is in Area 52.
It's Not Important (Score:1)
It's Not Important - and why (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
If I had points I'd mod you either funny or insightful. And equally offtopic, I love that sig.
Protect our borders (Score:3, Funny)
You'd think that Republicans would be big proponents of the space fence. We need something to keep illegal aliens out.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've never seen a brown alien, maybe that's why the don't care. So we need to give aliens minority status before Republicans decide they don't want them here, just wait until they find out they don't even know what Christianity is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think that Republicans would be big proponents of the space fence. We need something to keep illegal aliens out.
They're only in favor of keeping out illegal aliens who don't side with their policies (which paradoxically are to hate themselves and make everyone else's lives miserable.)
If Ronald Reagan were still around he'd turn this thing into the next SDI and it'd be funded better than last one.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be Star Wars Episode V or Star Wars Episode I?
Episode VII: Return of the Revenge of the Ewoks.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that seeing as many aliens would require something technologically advanced to make it to this planet, they'd be seen as a skilled worker, and as such, have no real problems getting in, save hiding their antennae / faking a heartbeat / learning to use the local currency.
Re: What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
Is the USA the only nation with such a project? With other countries going into space, satellites and the ISS you would expect either and international program and funding or each country having its own equivalent?
Does anyone know if the US is the only country tracking space junk?
Outsource it (Score:2)
It'll be done much cheaper and with only minor gaps in service, during which the chief overseer will be outside for a smoke or a natter on the mobile when Vlad Putin goes skydiving again and takes out a jet, which takes out a train, which takes out a factory, which takes out a utility pole, which takes out a school bus, which hits a motorcycle, which veers into a parking lot and hits the chief overseer, in the great granddaddy or unforeseen tragedies, for which the Pentagon will be blamed and blow up in the
Don't panic. (Score:4, Funny)
Sequestration (Score:1)
Well, at least we can still afford to defend against Brown People [dhs.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Shelton is playing politics (Score:5, Insightful)
The esteemed Gen. Shelton is playing politics. This is a standard trick. Whenever someone threatens or enacts budget cuts, politicians (and you don't get to be a general without being a politician) start shutting down things which may cost very little, but are highly noticeable or annoying. Obviously this demonstrates how catastrophic it would be to have your budget cut.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called the Washington Monument ploy.
Re:Shelton is playing politics (Score:4, Insightful)
'cept budgets are GROWING, just not as much (Score:1)
Actual 2013 spending: $3 trillion
Desired 2014 spending: $3.5 trillion
Actual 2014 spending: $3.3 trillion
Bottom line, human math: $300 billion increase
Bottom line, Washington / Democrat math: $200 billion "cut"
Re:'cept budgets are GROWING, just not as much (Score:4, Insightful)
Grow up. If we don't budget for inflation, things are going to suck even more when we get halfway through the fiscal year and realize we don't have the money to get make it to the end. This has nothing to with being a Republican or Democrat and everything with actually trying to plan a project and deliver something to the taxpayer. I realize most households don't have to worry about this on a yearly basis, but both government and big business must if they don't want to fail.
Now if you want to discuss whether it's in our long term national interest to print so much money that year-to-year inflationary growth is something we have to monitor in our budget process, fine. Or if you have thoughts on how to responsibly reduce government services without gutting either our social welfare or military programs (or both), please share. We need some good ideas, 'cause those idiots up on the Hill seem stumped. But just because you don't like inflation doesn't mean you can live in a fantasy land where it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
sane, logical, and sound policy is a far far different thing from "what you can actually get 51% of the congress to vote for". acknowledging that fact is not being unrealistic; to the contrary, it's the precise definition of being realistic.
Re: (Score:3)
Or if you have thoughts on how to responsibly reduce government services without gutting either our social welfare or military programs (or both), please share.
Well, I have thoughts on responsibly reducing governments services which require as a precondition some gutting of both social welfare and military programs.
Re: (Score:2)
we wouldn't have to "budget for inflation" if we weren't creating it in the first place....
The Fed's inflation target is 2% [wsj.com]. Not their "upper limit" target. That's the point that they would like it to be. Ever year, someone is extracting 2% of the value of all the savings in the country, on purpose.
Also, 2% of $3 trillion is $60 billion, not $500 million..
ROTFL. 4% inflation, 24% budget increase (Score:2)
The President proposes to spend $3.8 trillion in 2014, an increase of 10% over 2012. Inflation was 4%. Explain to me again how a 6% increase after inflation is a massive cut?
Re: (Score:2)
2012 proposal was 3.7. 10% of that is 0.37. the 2013 proposal is 3.8, an increase of only 0.1, or 2.7% (not 10%). For funsies, 2011 was also 3.8, and 2010 was 3.6. By your math I guess that's a 20% increase, not 5.6% ?
also, nice topic shift / straw man. you were talking about one specific proposal, and not you shifted to a totally different topic to try and construct an argument against the original statement?
wake me when you decide to start dealing with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
we've debunked this BS from you several times already.
short version is this: you're an idiot and dont know what you're talking about
Re: (Score:2)
Of course -- but the head of a government organization isn't interested in how much gets cut. He's interested in how much gets cut from his organization. His solution will be "cut it from those guys down the hall."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The esteemed Gen. Shelton is playing politics. This is a standard trick. Whenever someone threatens or enacts budget cuts, politicians (and you don't get to be a general without being a politician) start shutting down things which may cost very little, but are highly noticeable or annoying. Obviously this demonstrates how catastrophic it would be to have your budget cut.
It's the old, "Don't make me shot this dog!" trick and as you say, very effective, but only where there is sufficient sentiment for the welfare of the dog or the welfare of the companies which look after the dog on the taxpayer's ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The replacement is a 'multi-billion dollar project' according to TFA. Does that really qualify as a project which 'costs very little'?
No, but what they're talking about is shutting down the operation of the existing system.
Re: (Score:3)
And by "cuts" you mean "a reduction in the initially projected growth". That brilliant government scam where planning to increase a budget by 20% but then only increasing it by 10% counts as a 10% (or 50%, depending on how you phrase it!) "spending/budget cut".
Anyway, the defense budget is something along the lines of at least $700,000,000,000.00 (700-billion) per year. That is $7,000,000,000,000.00 (trillion) over the next decade. Cutting the budget by $15b/yr to even $50b/yr is fucking meaningless, even i
Re: (Score:2)
One word, er, acronym: LORAN (Score:3)
Remember what happened to it: instead of upgrading it to provide near-GNSS accuracy, they killed it, eliminating the only terrestrial nav/pos system outside of major airports and air traffic lanes. If we have another Carrington-size solar event or someone decides to deploy their satellite-killer missles/satellites/sharks-with-lasers/whatever, WE HAVE NO SAFETY NET for nav/pos as well as network synchronization!
They've already proven once they're willing to sacrifice the country's safety against outside for
Re: (Score:2)
As no country wishes to trust another to run their vital satnav, we're going to end up with at least three of them up there: GPS, the EU's Galileo system and Russia's GLONASS. I wouldn't be surprised if China wants one at some point too. At least there is some redundency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I liked how Thomas Sowell recently described it. Imagine a government agency which has two functions. Making statues of Benedict Arnold, and giving children life-saving vaccines. You cut their budget 50%. Obviously, they stop providing vaccines. Why? Because that's the part for which it will be easier to get funding restored.
Another example of what government is for. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is exactly the sort of thing government is for. It's not like I can set up a radar transmitter in my back yard and sell the data on the open market. I'm not allowed to use that spectrum, and it's blindingly obvious that if I were, so would everybody else, and the spectrum would rapidly become useless to everybody.
What's the alternative? Sell it to SpaceX? Then make NASA buy access to the data? And Lockheed. And Boeing. And Raytheon. And Virgin Galactic. And Blue Origin.
But we all know it wouldn't go that way. Lockheed or Boeing would lobby successfully to get to buy it, then charge everybody else on the list for access to the data. And refuse to sell data to SpaceX at all.
Three transmitters and six receivers costing billions is more than a little absurd, but the job does need doing, and needs doing in a fashion that doesn't set up a wholly inappropriate profit motive and an even more inappropriate opportunity to be anti-competitive. Having said that... Who runs those stations now? Wanna bet it's already Lockheed or Boeing or Raytheon? That'd be why it costs billions instead of the tens of millions it should cost. The wholly inappropriate cost-plus contract with profit motive is already in place. Now all we need is the anti-competitiveness to go with it.
Re: (Score:1)
If everybody was using that spectrum, it would become useless temporarily. But then people would be incentivized to innovate in the area, and over time we'd advance the state of the art.
Remember, there is no such thing as "interference" unless the emissions are coherent. Electromagnetic coherence doesn't happen unless you try really, really hard. So the only rule you truly need is to not be malicious.
WiFi and similar open spectrum uses have advanced state-of-the-art radio technology substantially faster tha
Re:Another example of what government is for. (Score:4, Insightful)
people would be incentivized to innovate in the area, and over time we'd advance the state of the art
Innovation in something like this is useless without cooperation (good luck with that) or regulation.
WiFi and similar open spectrum uses have advanced state-of-the-art radio technology substantially faster than all the prior, protected spectrum uses.
WiFi runs on the ISM bands, and they're highly regulated, not some sort of Wild West in the aether that you suggest. The ISM bands have limits on transmit power, dwell time for frequency hopping, spreading for CDMA or OFDMA, etc.
Remember, there is no such thing as "interference" unless the emissions are coherent. Electromagnetic coherence doesn't happen unless you try really, really hard.
Generating a coherent signal in RF or microwave bands is the easiest thing in the world, it's called a sine wave.
So the only rule you truly need is to not be malicious.
Right, who would maliciously interfere with a system that has defense applications.
Worried about an "arms war" on power output? Good! All the more incentive to create more sensitive receivers, or to advance coding theory.
More sensitive receivers are the last thing you need when dealing with interference. As for coding theory, we're already pretty close to Shannon's limit. BTW, the space fence has a 768kW EIRP transmitter. Talk about a serious entry into the "arms war". You also need that kind of power for what they're doing. We're not talking about a WiFi reaching 100 feet.
Do we restrict the number of washer machine detergents that are allowed to be sold commercially, lest "interference" with competitors make the market in detergent too difficult to sustain?
My washing machine doesn't interfere with my neighbor's washing machine. My 10kW transmitter might interfere with his reception.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, there is no such thing as "interference" unless the emissions are coherent. Electromagnetic coherence doesn't happen unless you try really, really hard. So the only rule you truly need is to not be malicious.
When you get out of the basement, you should consider taking a signal processing class, kid. What you are suggesting is like saying you don't need to drive in those silly "lanes" on the highway, because evolution will quickly cause new drivers to be born with faster reflexes.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I love about Slashdot. There's always some anonymous fuckwad [penny-arcade.com] ready and willing to shit on anything and everything.
Quote numbers or be silent, fuckwad.
It's a lie (Score:1)
There a plenty of systems that are tracking satellites and debris in space.
NORAD is doing exactly that, and even more: NORAD satellites data is free to access.
http://www.celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/
I understand, but that would cost more (Score:2)
Unfortunately, building fewer would cost more.
Building more and SELLING them saves a ton of money, and they are doing that.
Imagine if Apple spent a hundred million dollars developing the iPad and then only built 100 of them Each iPad would cost a million dollars. If they built 1,000 the development cost is $1000 each. It's the same with new fighter jets. Building 50 or 100 of them is DUMB with nine zeroes because you've already paid most of the cost, the development
10,000 C-47s built in 1940s, still used (Score:2)
Another example is the B-52, a 1950s plane. They built enough that the US Air Force still uses them 60 years later.
For fighters, the F-100 was produced in enough quantity that it lasted around 30-40 years. That's a shit ton cheaper than s
of course... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they would be. Remember, the military's primary objective is destruction of the enemy...and that's why they are the military, that's what militaries do. It's their first and last mission, so to speak.
The problem, obviously, is that between widespread corruption elsewhere, and possibly inside the various military / manufacturing areas, we're looking at not being able to buy basic items at some point in the future (as per projections). Basic items that the populace and military need to be happy, or at l
Re: (Score:2)
Of course right now I am at a country (trace adkins) concert with my girl, most people here think we should kill more terrists and this country is the shiznot.
I find it interesting how much of human society is about getting into women's pants, particular the infamous display of mating status behavior. Here, we have a human male whining about terrists, patriotism, and gay hating pieces of chicken because he doesn't perceive those things as worthy status symbols. But he's still there because his girl is.
And of course, he has to tell us how much he's suffering at this moment rather than just stay on topic. Good luck on the girl.
I monitor the space fence (Score:1)
If they shut it down we ham radio geeks will no longer be able to monitor the space fence signal and see the space debris and UFO orbiting over us. The ISS could also be in danger from surprise debris objects. Keep it operational, please! See my space fence object monitor captures at SATWATCH.ORG Thanks Mike
Re: (Score:2)
Let me recall... (Score:2)